March 2019

The author, a periodic contributor to Christian Order, is a veteran of the long struggle to regain British independence. In this historic month, when a huge step towards that eventuality is scheduled to occur, he revisits the totalitarian nature of the beast Britain is escaping. In particular, the origins and goals of the gradual legalistic enslavement of member states and their peoples (not least Catholics, as Pope Benedict warned).

The dark heart of the EU political project, very little is ever said or written about this sinister history. Hence the importance of this 1939 presentation on European legal integration by the National Socialist “Protector of the Law” and first President of the EEC Commission (1958-1967). In addition, the author provides the equally vital testimony of Lord Walsingham.

In sum, here is the truth that the treacherous British establishment, under the pernicious influence of the Foreign Office, kept from the people for ulterior purposes. Since the fanatical attempts to soften, derail and reverse Brexit will continue on regardless of what transpires on 29 March, this documentation should serve to stiffen resistance.

The Roots of EU Law

EDWARD SPALTON

The defining institution of what came to be the European Union was the body, devised by Jean Monnet which he called “The High Authority” of the European Coal and Steel Community. Nothing quite like it had ever existed before. It was an executive body but it also had the sole power of initiative in proposing legislation and regulation. Once the other bodies of the community had agreed to the proposals in consultations, the High Authority was responsible for carrying them out. Jean Monnet was in no doubt of the revolutionary nature of this institution. As he told the Washington Press Club on April 30 1952, “In this challenging time we are naturally encountering difficulties. They are the birth pangs attending the creation of a United States of Europe”.

When the European Economic Community was created by the 1957 Treaty of Rome, the equivalent body was given the much less grandiose title of “The European Commission” which would have the same sort of power over far wider areas of life, affecting all the inhabitants of every European member state. The Commission would enforce policies of the European Economic Community through the national institutions of the member states whose obedience could be compelled, if necessary, through the judgements of the European Court of Justice.

The first President of this powerful Commission would have a profound effect on the way in which the powers of the European Economic Community would develop and be applied. Yet he is rather less well known than other “fathers of Europe” – such as Monnet and Schuman.

He was Dr. Walter Hallstein. What sort of man was he? General De Gaulle was in no doubt. “If Dr. Hallstein is a sincere European, it is because he is first and foremost an ambitious German”. De Gaulle went on to write how Germany's association in the European project would create an obliging constellation of states which would eventually assist in German reunification, as well as in its post war rehabilitation amongst European states. Indeed, Dr. Hallstein's appointment was seen as an important contribution to this.

Hallstein had a high view of the authority of the Commission. He wrote in Europe in the Making:

“The Commission is entrusted with what virtually amounts to a monopoly in taking the initiative in all matters affecting the Community.... As I see it, the Commission should eventually be empowered to take all measures necessary for the implementation of the Treaty on its own authority, without having to rely on special and specific approval by the Council of Ministers”.

De Gaulle's view in 1965 of this aspiration was typically forthright:

“As for the Commission it deserves to disappear. I want no more of Hallstein... I want no more to do with them... I want no more that the French government should have to do business with these types... The problem, it is this mafia of supranationalists, whether commissioners, deputies or bureaucrats. They are all enemies. They have been put there by our enemies.”(1)

Walter Hallstein had become Germany's youngest Professor of law at the age of 29 in 1930 before the Nazi era. His subject was company and private law and his chair was at the University of Rostock in Mecklenburg until 1941 when he became Professor of Law and eventually dean of the faculty at the University of Frankfurt. He was called up for military service in 1942, serving as an Oberleutnant. He was captured by the Americans near Cherbourg on 26 June 1944.

He displayed considerable organisational skills and the Americans allowed him to establish a prison camp “university”, providing a re-education course in which he studied the American federal constitution. He was invited back as a visiting professor after the war and expressed admiration for the American way of doing things.

Hallstein became State Secretary in the Foreign Office of West Germany under Dr. Adenauer, the first post-war German Chancellor who was also his own foreign minister. During this time the “Hallstein Doctrine” was established. West Germany would not enter into diplomatic relations with states which recognised the communist government of East Germany. One effect of this was that no suspected German war criminals would be extradited to the Iron Curtain countries where most Nazi atrocities had occurred. Hallstein was involved with the negotiations of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty and of the Treaty of Rome which established the European Economic Community. He must have earned a good opinion from his colleagues in the other European countries.

The outline of Hallstein's career during the Nazi period established that he had not been a member of the Nazi party and the version of the story which has most currency is that anti-Nazi colleagues secured his promotion to the University of Frankfurt in spite of the opposition of the Nazi authorities. He is known to have been selected for a National Socialist leadership course which enabled him to join the army as an officer. Anyone living in a totalitarian regime has to adjust to the realities of life if they are to prosper and indeed to survive.

Under the Nazi dispensation every organised area of social life was “co-ordinated” (gleichgeschaltet) as part of the “People's Community” (Volksgemeinschaft). So, if you belonged to any organisation – the bee keepers, the allotment holders, the equivalent of the Women's Institute or the pigeon fanciers – you would find that a Nazi official had been appointed to control it and that it had become the “National Socialist Bee-keepers' Association” or had been affiliated to a larger organisation comprising the special interest. There was no escaping that. There were other associations and professional groups which were rather more sinister.

Hallstein is known to have belonged to several such groups and two of them were pretty harmless. He was a member of the Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (National Socialist People's Welfare ), a charity and social service organisation.

This is the sort of activity which would establish a reputation for what we would now call “caring”. The Nazis believed in “Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz” (Community benefit before private benefit). Participation in such a group would help to establish bona fides as a genuine “Volksgenosse” (People's Comrade) and, of course, the altruism might be entirely genuine in the atmosphere of officially enforced communitarian mateyness which pervaded German society. He also belonged to the Reichsluftschutzbund (National Air Defence League) which operated closely with the party but this was only the equivalent of what was called ARP (Air Raid Precautions) in Britain.(2)

So the Professor may have been a part time air raid warden, like Mr Hodges in “Dad's Army”,(3) a plane spotter and plotter in the equivalent of the Royal Observer Corps or a fire watcher guarding the buildings of his university. He may also have been an auxiliary anti-aircraft gunner (Flakhelfer), a service into which lads of sixteen and older men in reserved occupations were conscripted.

But he also belonged to two organisations of a distinctly darker hue. One was the National Socialist University Lecturers' League (Nationalsozialistischer Dozentenbund) which was responsible for weeding out politically undesirable and Jewish university lecturers. Whilst friends undoubtedly helped other friends gain promotion, it is rather doubtful that anybody who was at all suspect of inadequate enthusiasm for the Nazi regime and its Volksgemeinschaft (People's Community) could get into a plum position for which genuinely keen Nazi supporters were also competing. The controls and supervision had been tightening for eight years.

The other professional organisation to which Hallstein belonged was the Nationalsozialistischer Rechtwahrerbund which translates rather clumsily as the National Socialist League of Protectors of the Law. It was in this capacity that Hallstein addressed a rather important meeting in 1939 and the record of the occasion has been preserved. The Nazi party organisational handbook had a graded series of propaganda meetings with procedures for each, specifying the length of the meeting and what officials should preside or be invited, how many brass bands were required and so on. At an ordinary level was a “Feierstunde” – a “Celebration Hour”. Rather more important was a “Feierabend” (Celebration Evening) and for really important occasions there might be a “Feiertag” (Celebration Day). 

Hallstein was the lead attraction in a function which Rostock University called a Vortragabend – a lecture evening – and it was fully reported in the regional Nazi paper the Niederdeutscher Beobachter of 24 January 1939. It was not just a university but a state occasion. Dr. Scharf, the Minister of State, was present. The subject was something with which Professor Hallstein would later deal in his work for the European Commission – the harmonisation or integration of law over an area composed of formerly separate jurisdictions. Here is the report – discovered and translated by the Dr. Rath Foundation which also produced facsimiles of parts of the newspaper report and of the manuscript of the speech.(4) (Bold emphases added - Ed.)

___________________________

GREATER GERMANY AS LEGAL ENTITY

University of Rostock Lecture Evening
Speaker Professor Hallstein

Rostock 24 January 1939

Last night a lecture evening took place in Mahn and Ohlerichs Cellar. Prof-Dr. Ruickholdt, dean of the university, had issued the invitation. In his opening speech he welcomed Minister of State Dr. Scharf, representatives of the party and its organisations, of the armed forces, the Reich Labour Service and the city of Rostock, as well as representatives of the business sector and the student body.

Ruickholdt expressed the hope of the university that the evening might contribute to the public's trust in it and understanding of it. For even though it is an old foundation which can look back on a long history and old tradition, it is not far from everyday life. The Fuehrer's great appreciation of the German universities as the bearers of a valuable tradition could be seen from the fact that during the cultural conference, the rectors attended the Nuremberg rally in 1938 in their historic academic robes, said Ruickholdt.

The speaker of the evening was Dr. Hallstein, professor of law, who has gained a considerable experience in European legal policies through comparative research. He discussed the issue of the legal integration of the Ostmark (Austria) and of the Sudetenland.

Professor Dr. Hallstein's profound statements were received with much applause. The evening was rounded off with a social gathering. As well as the Minister of State, the guests of honour included, amongst others: Mayor Volgmann, Colonel Lieb the garrison commander, Generalarbeitsfuehrer Schroeder of the Reich Labour Service, a representative of the Kreisleiter (County leader), the County Organisation Leader Degner, SA Oberfuehrer (equivalent to brigadier) Behnert, Constable Dr. Sommer, Ministerial Director Dr. Bergholter, Lieutenant Colonel von Bleffingh, Warnemuende District.

Hallstein's Speech

“The (National Socialist) Protector of the law has three tasks: he has to know the law, to apply it and to develop it. The most important among these tasks is the third one because everything we do is subject to the law of development.

We not only have to pay attention to the existing law but particularly to law making for the future. Our task in legal policy is not only to maintain the existing order but to create a better one.

I should explain why it is the Protector of the Law who has a particular calling to to undertake this task.

The leadership of the state has the unconditional and final power in all decisions relating to the structure of this Community of the People.

Does the leadership of the state need lawyers to fulfil this political task? The individual lawyer may wish to see it in that way from a professional and psychological standpoint, which is understandable. Lawyers are generally busy for their entire life, regulating and controlling the traffic of the Community inside a preserve tightly confined by thousands of legal paragraphs, occupied with everyday concerns like “mending the fences” and “cleaning the drains”.

Thus lawyers will feel a strong temptation derived from the liberating deed of law creation, this masculine challenge that characterises every advance into unknown territories of a tremendous, large scale planning effort – or just take care of the modest (legal) garden entrusted to their care.

However, the reasoning for the responsibility of the Protector of the Law for this architectural role derives from the necessities and needs of the community.

Creating this new legal policy requires the support of those lawyers who command the field of law, who know the legislation and the rules of law-making for it is obvious that one needs to know the “Good” in order to find the “Better”.

I am convinced however that the justification of this calling to craft new legislation has to be founded even more deeply. I think it has to come from the very nature of the order given by the people to the Protector of the Law.

Following a law of nature innate in the profession of the “Protector of the Law”, he must ultimately be the responsible architect of the law.

The relation between the Protector of the Law and the Law today is different from the “Legal Positivism” of the late 19th century which was the prevailing opinion until the turn of the (20th) century.

The creation of new law is solely the task of the legislators and the role of the judge is confined to the integration – the “submission” of the “facts of Life” amongst those facts decided by the law. He tries to liberate the law from eventualities and exposes the reinforcing framework of a law which ties legal consequences to a random event.

All branches of the law are part of the reformation. The scientific theory of the law, the results of which are being condensed in legal advice for the practice of the law and the daily efforts by front line officers of the law who become advocates of the  legal self-awareness of the law as well as by the judge who with his verdict brings final validity to the law.

All these elements develop the law in a meticulous continuous effort which requires daily awareness of the people's consciousness of the law.

The true nature of the legal constitution of a people can only be recognised by those observers who not only inspect the law but take into consideration the lively synergy of all these forces together. This “extensively practiced art” has to be used when a general overhaul of the entire legal system is due which is beyond the possibility of day-to-day corrections.

This is even more true when a complete overturning of the legal system of revolutionary proportions calls for the use of all available forces.

Today we see the entirety of the Protectors of the Law – the entire legal profession if you will – participating in the giant task of the People's Renovation of the law.

The truth is that no law comprises the full magnitude of life, and that every formulation of legal facts can only be an attempt to highlight the typical elements of a decision. Thus, as has been known since ancient times, the logic of a lawyer is necessarily based on analogy.

The most outstanding characteristic of today's state of the law will forever be the total policy of the law. This means an unprecedentedly wide and deep revolution of the antiquated legal system to its remotest corners. The result of this will characterise the cultural face of the new era.

In the past, this process was an event within the conventional borders – a type of internal affair of a small-size Germany.  Epochal events, however, show this process in a completely new light.

All internal problems, all internal tasks are overshadowed by the great impact of the unification of other nations to the German Reich, they are overwhelmed by the magnificent impulses that inspire the work from the homecoming of Austria and the Sudetenland.

The creation of the Greater German Reich is a political fact, a “Fuehrer Act” of epochal dimension, one of those (historical) acts that change the landscape of history and fulfil an old longing of the people; an economic event of scarcely imaginable consequences, an event of exceptional significance from the perspective of the history of law. The task is no longer just to renovate a dilapidated old house, but to construct a new building for an enlarged family on an extended territory. The question will be: is it really necessary to erect just one building?

This brings us right to the first problem of legal policy caused by the territorial annexations: Why should one legal system form the basis of a Greater Germany?

There can be no doubt today about the necessity for a unified legal system.

The failure to put this law into action is one of the unfinished tasks and failures of the Second German Reich.

The affirmation arises not only from material convenience. This Greater Germany is increasingly becoming one single economic entity.

Therefore it is obviously not acceptable that the legal system – that represents the blood circulation of this body – is being strangled by the diversity of legal systems in its different parts.

A people is not only formed by common physical conditions, i.e. inherited and external factors. Neither is it formed by the common fate of history alone. A people is primarily shaped by common convictions and values.

Thus the leadership of a People's State, in particular National Socialism, cannot do without the tools of law in order to secure this common ground.

The law is the most outstanding means of education at the disposal of a community, for there are few things, of which the authoritative nature is so deeply based in the human heart as the belief in law and truth.

Since we have now answered the question of “if” a uniform legal system is needed, we can now turn to the question of “what” such a system must look like, which has even more difficulties.

The Anschluss is initially a process of State Law. This progress integrates the territory and the people of the newly joined state, creating a new nationality for the people.

Moreover this process subjects the people and the territory (of the annexed states) to the sovereignty of the Mother State with its defined legislative and executive constitutional powers.

In other legal areas the Anschluss leaves the existing legal order intact, in all the annexed  territories the old legal system continues – except, of course, where this contradicts the constitution of the unified state.

Thus, for the Great German Reich, a common legal system is not a fact that automatically results from the creation of this Reich but it is a task.

A naïve observer of the situation could think that nothing is easier to accomplish than this task. Such a person could think that one needs only one instruction (Vorschift) namely that all the laws of the old Reich would immediately be applicable to the Ostmark (Austria) and the Sudetenland, but the task in hand is not
that simple.

It is impossible to impose over such a territory at once the entire sum of all our written laws. Such a strategy would be doomed to fail from the start by the limitations of mental capacity of the people who will have to apply these laws.

Such an attempt would also fail due to the complexity of the structure of a modern social order. One cannot simply change a legal system like a dress that has become unfashionable because every fundamental change also touches – so to speak – the personality of a people.

I am now coming to the concrete questions of the adjustment of law. One has to distinguish between certain norms, the introduction of which cannot be delayed; they represent a certain “Emergency Programme” within the process of legal unification.

On the other hand there are laws which have to be crafted first, since in the legal field there are no inventions but only discoveries. These laws require the participation of the Protectors of the Law in the Eastern Territories, which can make some contribution to the reformation of our legal system towards making it a true law of the German people.

The “Legal Emergency Programme”, the immediate goals, are in fact the introduction of the laws already in use in the Old Reich.

The legal process to introduce these laws is the Directive. The Competence to issue these Directives lies with the officials of the Reich, the Reichsministers together with the Ministry of the Interior. Among the subjects of this rapid alignment we can distinguish between two groups. The first group comprises the Directives concerning the constitutional law which constitute the National Socialist State and define its shape and reality. These Directives were already introduced into Austria a few days after the Unification Law. Among them are:

• The state constitutional laws against the setting up of new political parties
• State constitutional laws to secure unity between the state and the party
• State constitutional laws for the new construction of the Reichsbank
• State constitutional laws concerning the Governors of the Reich
• Certain legal complexes connected with these constitutional laws, including the Reich Citizenship law, the Reich flag law, Directives about national markings, the national seal and national symbols.

The second group of immediate laws, which are expanding daily, comprises the Directives concerning the building up of the State organisations, Material Rights or proceedings on which the National Socialist law has already ruled – either by maintaining existing legal conditions or by creating new ones.

These Directives are “causa judicata” i.e. they have proceeded from the area of legal policy into the state of existing legal order.

These laws require no further deliberations.

The most important Acts in this category that were immediately introduced (in the recently annexed countries) were:

The law for the protection of German blood and German honour
The setting up of the administrative organisations of the Reichsbank
The financial administration as one of the first measures
The judicial administration
The railway and postal service administration
The air traffic administration
The offices of the propaganda ministry.
The military laws, the laws about the Reich Labour Service and the law concerning air defence.
From the Administrative Laws, the Reich Community Administrative Law, the Law for Reunion, part of the Civil Service Code and part of the law relating to the Public Service Salary Regulations
Important taxes
For the Laws Regulating Professional Organisations, the Law Regulating the Chambers of Culture and the Veterinary Law.
From the farming law, the Farm Estate Inheritance Law, the Food Supply Law and Regulations for Marketing Agricultural Produce.
From the Social Law – the Reich Insurance Regulations and the Social Welfare Regulations
From the Employment Laws, step by step, the Law Regulating National Labour Service.
From the Law on the Economy the “Order to enforce the Four Year Plan”, furthermore the Rules about the Productive Sector of the Economy.
About Cartel Law, about Corporate Advertising,  about the Formation of Prices
From the Civil Law – the law preventing the abuse of executive power
From the Criminal Law in particular, the Laws about Treason and High Treason
From Private Law, the new Shareholder Law and the Laws relating to Bills of Exchange and Cheques.

The introduction of these laws of great urgency cannot simply be accompanied by a naked sentence that orders these laws into force in the new territories.

By the way, these laws have not been introduced into the Sudetenland at the same speed (as in Austria) because of insufficient time but also because, in the case of the Sudetenland, we did not take over an entire state with a defined legal system.

The structure of the administrative organisation of Austria and Sudetenland, which is currently being shaped,will serve as a model for the future administration of the entire Reich. This has been outlined by Reichsminister Frick (Interior) a few days ago during a speech at the Academy of Administration in Hamburg.

At the lower level of the administrative structure in conquered countries there will be the entities of cities and counties. The counties are a mixture of administrative districts of the State and self-administered bodies.

They will be led by an administrative head (Landrat).

At the middle level of this administrative structure there will be the entities of Regions of the Reich (Reichsgaue), also a mixture of administrative districts of the State and self – administered bodies. They will be led by governors of the Reich.

These few examples may give you an impression of how much still needs to be done after the political Germanisation  and also the legal Germanisation of the new territories. An overwhelming abundance of great opportunities lies before the German  “Protector of the Law.”

He will seize it with a deep trust in the future of our people and with the consciousness that it is an honour  for him to share a modest part of the burden of the construction of the grand historical task of Germany of which we all have been made part.”

___________________________

This is a revealing glimpse into a considerable legal brain, wrestling with the complexities of creating a common legal system and area out of a number of diverse territories. The same brain would mastermind a very similar process in the formative first decade of the post war European Economic Community. As in 1939 he would work energetically for “integration” and was familiar then with the issuing of “Directives” to bring it about – a word with which we have since  become all-too familiar. 

Anybody who has wondered where the relentless determination, language and concepts of EU legislation originated need look no further. The pre-war Hallstein saw the impulse of the law as coming from the political leadership – “a Fuehrer Act” – and being developed and enforced by those “National Socialist Protectors of the Law” in whose ranks he numbered himself. In the post-war European Economic Community, Hallstein saw the Commission itself as originator, developer and enforcer of the law under the “Fuehrer Act” of the Treaty of Rome with only a vestigial input from Council of Ministers of the EEC countries, the last tenuous link with democracy.

In her paper “The Point of No Return. Walter Hallstein and the EEC Commission between institutional Ambitions and Political Constraints”,(5) Henriette Mueller accepts the story of the anti-Nazi or at least apolitical early Hallstein. She also states that he had taken no interest in the idea of Europe before the war. Yet the reporter of the Niederdeutscher Beobachter knew better in 1939, saying that Hallstein had “gained a considerable experience in European legal policies through comparative research”. From 21 to 25 June 1938, Hallstein had been part of a Reich delegation to Italy, strengthening the European co-operation of the Axis powers. Hallstein served a European apprenticeship in the Nazi era, which uniquely fitted him for his later role. We are entitled to consider the Fuehrer as the pupil master he served and the effect that had on the way in which the post war project turned out.

* * * * *

Witness to Treachery

[Witness to History (video): The 1944 and 1950 Franco-German Conspiracies: A Contemporary View of the European Coal and Steel Community from inside the British Foreign Office]

LORD WALSINGHAM, now aged ninety-two was a young diplomat in the Foreign Office at the time of the negotiation of the European Coal & Steel Community. Then the Hon. John de Grey (not having succeeded to the title), he was made secretary of the tripartite study group between the USA, the UK and France which approved the alterations of the occupation statutes for Germany, thus laying the  foundation of the community. Having discharged this duty, he resigned in protest at the outcome. British intelligence was well aware that Germany and France had secret plans to subsidise each other's heavy industry when in competition with Britain to weaken British defence capabilities.

Lord Walsingham wrote that a Foreign Office senior colleague:

“was considerably put out when he learned the revelation of the Nazi inspiration of the treaty would make no difference to government support for it, although it was to be signed specifically in order to destroy Great Britain and reverse the outcome of World War II. Meanwhile it was being widely presented to the idealist lobby as the first step towards  getting Europe working together, taken by the former enemies, and not two ganging upon the other two ( USA and UK) to reverse the outcome of the war and prosper the Nazi cause, which was the reality”.

In the video Witness to History(6) he gives his mature view that the EU is not all a Nazi plot but that the input from this source influenced it heavily and was at least one  source of its authoritarian, anti-democratic nature.

Certainly, relative British industrial decline speeded up from the Fifties. It would be interesting to discover how far this received a helping hand from the Franco-German European project. During the period to which Lord Walsingham refers, Dr Hallstein was a key man in the Franco-German negotiations and could hardly have been unaware of such matters. One wonders whether he later discussed it in his cosy bachelor chats with Edward Heath at Chequers, the Prime Minister's country residence.

Nobody can escape the formative experiences of his country's history. Hallstein's personality, authoritarian legal doctrines and ambitions show remarkable consistency across his career. Setting aside his presumably compulsory obeisances to the Political Correctness of the Third Reich, his views in 1939 and the not very different legal course he set in 1958 aggrandising the centralising powers of the European Commission, explain much of what is “at the heart of Europe” and why it makes so many British people feel profoundly uneasy – often without knowing exactly why.

It is interesting that, even with the totalitarian power of the Nazi dictatorship, Hallstein understood that legal unification had to be a gradual, cumulative process – just as was later practiced more circumspectly in the “engrenage” method employed by the European project, suppressing democracy in member states and replacing it by the central diktat of the European Union bit by bit.

Hallstein has his successors as “Protectors of the Law” in the European Court of Justice where Ruiz Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, proclaimed “Criticism of the EU is akin to blasphemy and can be restricted without affecting freedom of speech”  (Case c- 274/99).

Twenty years after Lord Walsingham's departure, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was certainly aware of the British people's dislike of authoritarianism when it advised Her Majesty's Government in 1971, looking ahead several decades:

“The transfer of major executive responsibilities to the bureaucratic Commission in Brussels  will exacerbate popular feelings of alienation from government.... There would be a major responsibility on HM Government and on all political parties not to exacerbate public concern by attributing unpopular policies to the remote and unmanageable workings of the Community”. ( FCO Ref 30/1048 (1971)

This advice remained an official secret for thirty years, as was the covert programme of manipulation of public opinion by HM Government. 

In a curious inversion of role, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office acquired the function of portraying the EEC in a favourable light to the British people in the early Seventies. Norman Reddaway (later Ambassador to Poland) gave the BBC and other media daily “advice” on news presentation. Jack de Manio, a well-known BBC presenter, was dismissed for his unhelpful attitude to the project. The BBC has remained an obedient propagandist for the EU ever since.

Apart from the communist Daily Worker, every single British national newspaper was favourable to EEC membership –  a degree of Gleichschaltung of which Dr. Goebbels himself might have been proud. The impression was given that the EEC was primarily about trade – a “Common Market” – and this deceit came at a price which was acknowledged by that keen Europhile Lord Hattersley in the BBC programme “Document - A Letter to the Times” (3 Feb 2000):

All those years the Europeans would say “Let's not risk trying to make fundamental changes by telling the whole truth”...... Not only was it wrong for us to deal superficially with what Europe involved but we've paid the price ever since because every time there is a crisis in Europe people say with some justification, “Well, we would never have been part of this if we had known the implications.”                                                       

If the truth had come out earlier, no British government could seriously have proposed Hallstein's vision to the British people.

 

FOOTNOTES

(1) C'etait de Gaulle, Alain Peyrefitte, Fayard, Editions de Fallois, Tome II pp 290-291.

(2) See “The Blackout in Britain and Germany during the Second World War” – Doctoral thesis by Marc Patrick Wiggam March 2011, University of Exeter.  https://ore.exeter.ac.uk

(3) For the average British reader of middle years or less, this is likely to be the most familiar impression they have received of this aspect of domestic wartime history – “Dad's Army” – a much-loved  television comedy series about the wartime exploits of a Home Guard platoon in the fictional south coast town of Walmington-on-Sea. Professor Hallstein would have been socially superior to the air raid warden Hodges, who was a greengrocer, but both the real and the fictional  characters had strong authoritarian tendencies. In wartime radio comedy programmes, the officious air raid warden with his cry of “Put that light out!” was a figure of fun, as a safety valve for public irritation with the petty tyrannies of the Defence Regulations.

(4) This report is contained in The Nazi Roots of the Brussels EU by Paul Anthony Taylor, Aleksandra Niedzwiecki, Matthias Rath and August Kowalczyk. www.reject-the-eu.co.uk. These excerpts are reproduced with the permission of the Dr. Rath Health Foundation www.dr-rath-foundation.org

(5) Les Cahiers europeeens des Sciences Po. No 03/2012.

(6) Both the video and supporting documents can be found on the CIB website: www.campaignforanindependentbritain.org.uk/witness-to-history

Back to Top